Matrix Games Forums

Could something similar be done for the IJA militia divisions as well? It doesn't make sense that they'd be available to use against a '45 invasion, but not earlier. (Maybe slightly fewer divisions, but there still would have been mass mobilization.)

Possibly as I said this hasnt been coded yet and probably wont be for release

While I'd like to see it, I realize this feature might not make the initial release. I suppose my point was simply that if and when the code allows the allies to benefit from counter-invasion reinforcements, so should Japan. I'm mostly an AFB, but it just seems fair.

Keep up the good work! BTW - damn bright idea on those "replacement drafts" or whatever you call them. [:)]

I did a little testing once that tended to indicate that a tank is a tank is a tank. The 5 ton tinfoil toys with low velocity 37mm guns that the Japanese tended to use seemed to hold up pretty well against Soviet T34/85s in stock. Though tank vs tank warfare doesn't figure very prominently in WitP I would hope that such armored clashes as occur would make some sense.

We havent tested them yet but broadly a tank is a tank except when it comes to destruction and disruption not on the agenda to fix this one same story as before a full rewrite of the land model is out of scope its just to big a job - we are tweaking it to try and make it better but we are not re writing it

ctangus the fact is NOTHING I am doing on ORBATS is not moddable there are literally thousands of new slots and device slots by the gazillion.
 
At heart I am Divisions should fight as Divisons man and I think thats the level WITP is designed for but if someone wants to convert the whole thing to a UV scale with HQ's for every Division and Engineer Regts and combat regts well then they can I personally think it would be a nightmare but thats a choice the modders have
 
If you really want to you can is the rule for the new editor

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Possibly as I said this hasnt been coded yet and probably wont be for release

This brings to mind a question. If you have the OB for this in the database, and a game is started with that database, then when the patch comes out, will the feature work for games in progress because you already had the units in the database when the game started?

Are bases going to have a "Maximum buildable Fort Level", now you can have atolls better fortified than Maginot line....

Will ASW and A-MTB nets or other static defences be incorporated into base structure?

Thats why we are building theOB we know we want to do it so if we build theOOB for it it is a code only change ergo no need to restart thats the theory at any rate.
 
Blitztk no but some terrain types, island sizes have restrictions and lvls 7 and above are now a total swine to build (plus so many extra bases make it a swine to build forts in em all)
 
Gunner98 no thats not in

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


Also how is Japan being hamstrung? With such limited replacements, a non-historical strategy by Japan will be devastating to the allies since they are now hamstrung with historical limits for almost the entire game. Can Japan still build unlimited equipment items of all types?

Don’t get me wrong, I want and enjoy historical accuracy and appreciate all your efforts. But it has to be a two sided coin or Japan can simply exploit the weakness.

In the current system, Japan can build 10,000 tanks if he needs them. Granted he probably won’t need them and won’t build 10,000 tanks, but he can if he needs to, the system places no limits on anything other than raw production power. There is absolutely no historical basis for this and it is pure fantasy, but there it is.

So while Japan has a completely flexible and responsive production system, you are hog tying the allies into some pretty restrictive and non-responsive corners, with little or no ability to make up for non-historic outcomes in the game.

Hi,

the Japanese OOB looks quite different from WITP and this will lead to some delays in making newly arriving units combat-ready (somewhat difficult to explain here because one has to actually see the OOB and to understand certain new functions to understand it completely). This does not completely solve the problem with Japanese production, but we are still working on this aspect but we'll have to do some more testing.

Producing lots of tanks will not help much due to the somewhat limited amount of tank units available to Japan until the second half of 1944.

K

ORIGINAL: spence

I did a little testing once that tended to indicate that a tank is a tank is a tank. The 5 ton tinfoil toys with low velocity 37mm guns that the Japanese tended to use seemed to hold up pretty well against Soviet T34/85s in stock. Though tank vs tank warfare doesn't figure very prominently in WitP I would hope that such armored clashes as occur would make some sense.

Well, this ('a tank is a tank is a tank') is only partially correct. The basic assault value is the same, but the modified assault value (in this regard: firepower of individual devices) makes a big difference (and this does not only apply to tanks).

Not easy to test because there're many other factors that can modify the assault value (lots of variables; 'dice-throws' one could say).

And the Improvised AFV's used in the early war Indian, NZ and Australian units are basically a truck with no armour and a Lewis gun on top - when I tested them against japanese tanks they took horrific casualties only mitigated by the fact that the bloke on the back had the ability to throw a grenade or 2.
 
In one fight they are ok after 1 days fight in either attack or defence they are crippled do not use them unless you have to.
 
The main reason for including them is that almost all the Indian Armoured units start with very very low experience by training via PP point accumulation the experience level will rise but I didnt want them to take a massive hit to that experience by filling up over time with tanks as they arrive.
 
So instead they get some improvised vehicles to practice and train on and when the tanks start to trickle into combat units they upgrade existing vehicles.
 
I expect on a Sqn Base (Armoured Regts) or Regt basis (Armoured Bdes) that Indian Armour will have a very mixed feel to it.
 
The 2 upgrade paths for CW Heavy Armour are
 
1. Improvised AFV - Vickers VIB - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant (I) - Sherman V (Indian/British and some NZ forces).
 
2. Matilda II - General Grant - Sherman V (Mostly Australian Armoured units) 

How do tank units fair in situatioins whear they have to atack a heavely fortified hex, I know on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for example the US armored units suffered over 100% losses, that is to say that every tank they startted with was destroyed and they brought more on shore to keep the units going.
 
 How is the extream historical fortification leval of these islands, and others, represented?

The extreme fort levels of these islands are a combination of forts and terrain.
 
After much heartsearching we DID NOT change the multiplicative nature of terrain and forts.
 
Believe me this was a hard fought battle with my inner demons....
 
As a result high level forts in mountainous or heavy rough terrain are still incredibly powerfull. You can still build forts up to level 9 which will result in a x4 multiplier x whatever the terrain effect is typically 2 or 3 for adjusted AV's of 8 - 12x for the defenders.
 
The cost of level 9 forts is now a lot more expensive (to get above lvl 6 you need 25,000 supplies just to start building lvl 7 forts to reflect specialist construction required - not to mention that building forts from 6 - 9 will now take longer than a month more like 4 or 5 I think - BUT those two bases you mention Brady are a couple of the places where I would anticipate japanese players making the effort to get the forts up.
 
Allied with terrain I still expect those two places and a few others to be extremely nasty to attack especially if the stacking rules work as anticipated.
 
What you wont find now is every base on map having lvl 9 forts - de facto its not possible for either side to many bases and to long to build higher level forts in all bases.
 
Andy

Andy Mac-Sounds good to me, Aside from the obvious, adding more enginers to the pile (is their a limt to this?), and HQ's/Leaders,what can be done to expidate fortifacation?
 
 
    

Not much can be done to expedite forts as per stock 1 - 4 are pretty easy to build and fairly quick there is still a cap on the number of engineers that can work in one place I think its maxed at 250 engineer squads
 
5 and 6 are a little tougher to build but more or less the same as stock
 
7 - 9 are now nasty to build you will not NOT be able to expedite them much they will take months even with a lot of engineers given that these are intricate multilayered fixed defences  this seems approriate
 
But this needs to be tested further
 
(p.s. you need to look at this as a whole and remember that we have made other tweaks like substantially increasining under prepared invasion penalties for the allies)

Will the Japanese still have the ealy war invasion bonus??
 
Will there be any penalty for them to jump from base to base during those early months which often happens now (most are probably done with little to no prep points)??
 
They may need to have some level of prep done to get the bonus.
10, 15, 20 points worth?!?

No the Japanese are expempt for 5 months -I thought about taking it out but without building a new at start module that allows the Japanese to designate prep areas that we couldnt do it - it was too hard
 
And with all the new bases and the ground the Japanese need to cover it was just easier to leave it in

OK Guys wearing my other hat now not land team lead
 
I ended up doing the entire CW, Dutch and other ORBATS on AE.
 
Now I am doing my final final final tweaks and I discover I have a few leader slots free at HQ level I have already added a lot of leaders to round out CW nations but I do have a few left so here is a little challenge to you suggest a leader..
 
The rules must be an HQ (Naval, Ground or Air HQ)
Can be for British, Indian, CW, NZ, Australian, or Canadian Forces
I need the name the rank anbd the date of arrival - don't worry about stats I will generate them after I research the suggestions as I need to keep them consistent.
 
HQ Level Leaders
NZ Land HQ's (3), Air HQ's (1) (plus Park but he counts in the Brit Leader list), Naval 0 (no Naval HQ's)
Canada Land (2), Air (1) (has 1 air HQ but no leader)
Aus Land (6) Air (8) (balance is wrong need a couple more land HQ leaders)
Brit Land (17), Air (15), Naval (4)
 
 
Obvious areas for me to add are a Canadian Air HQ leader for Western Command and a couple of Australian REMF's to command area HQ's
 
Fire away I look forward to recieving suggestions
 
(These exclude TF leaders which are navy team business.)